This is the first-order, emotional reaction, yes, but policy should be made based on its full effects, not just its sales pitch's popularity with first-order-emoting voters.
No. It's a Sybil attack on subsidy to help ppl of different means equally make room for education in their lives. No one is "making money" unless they are committing fraud. They are being put on an equal playing field -- the subsidies are seemingly directed at the individual, but are terraforming [of the field] in nature, not for enrichment of the individual.
I was able to get educated with full focus on that task, because my family prioritised saving for my education. I want others, without such privilege, to have access to such opportunity.
If you choose to frame it also that "your parents paid you to consume free education", then so be it. But let's not pretend the state is doing something strange or against its core mission here
Europe as a whole manages to hand over money for nothing to would-be students in need without any anti-education backlash. An anti-education stance is the cause of protesting education subsidies, not their consequence.
As someone else pointed out, yeah - anti education movements are a third order effect of how succesful education is at not making people vote for religious causes and non scientific positions.
The threat of its efficacy, is why, since 1960 onwards, a large chunk of the western world has been figuring out how to bend psychology, rhetoric, and media forces to undermine "Ivory tower" intellectuals.
Yes, a succesful movement has been undermined because it posed a threat to people with the money to spend to fight their battles.
This. People didn't agree on immigration levels yet they thought people fleeing horror should have shelter from the horror and be given asylum. The Democrats seemed to let the asylum process be abused as a general immigration process and now the US is having a huge pullback/backlash on asylum seekers.
> The third order effect of handing out money for nothing, is the chicks coming home to roost as anti-education movements
Anti-education movements may be a third order effect for this, but it's a first order effect for other groups who are deliberately pushing anti-education efforts.
One can virtue signal on either political spectrum, obviously. Phatic, performative language and gestures to indicate allegiance and supplication are possible for any given philosophy. Bumper stickers are literally virtue signalling.
"Virtue Signaling" is often a term of derision placed from the right onto the left. But is often done just as much on the other side. It's part of the 'right's vocabulary of labels for the left.
I just like to point out all the times when the 'right' take part in "virtue signaling".
Right wing , political or religious, often take part in "virtue signaling". Yet, seem unconscious of it, un-ware of their own biases, because to them they are not 'signaling' they are just speaking 'truth'.
But of course, they are not. "God is real, hence I'm not just 'signaling' when I say it to my fellow believers".
The fact you think the "libs" are the only ones who can virtue signal says a lot about you. The far-right have an entire playbook of dog whistles just for virtue signaling.
Please avoid labels. It’s not unique to the ‘far’ right to want to manage accountability to limited resources like quality education. it’s generally accepted that requiring some level of skin in the game from those that benefit does a decent job of doing this.
> it’s generally accepted that requiring some level of skin in the game from those that benefit does a decent job of doing this
"Generally accepted" by who? Based on what?
Sometimes the reactions on this site are silly. We're talking about community college here. The people going to community college are trying to transition their life from minimum wage retail job to useful careers as things like dental hygienists, nurses, IT workers and daycare workers.
Their own increased future earnings will offset the subsidies through higher taxes and reduced burden on social services, and everyone in society benefits by having people in the types of jobs that community colleges prepare students for.
Community colleges are just a massive benefit to society at large, regardless of whether you're leftwing, rightwing, rich, poor, young or old. Literally everyone is benefiting here.
Off the top of my head, so may not align exactly with formal definitions, but economics is the study of allocation of resources and how incentives play a large role in how human behavior is influenced by those incentives. I prefer Sowell for a primer but if he’s not to your liking try google, keywords economic incentives and resource allocation.
i have plenty of personal experience with community colleges and those close to me have gone from penniless immigrant to making more than the average tech bro because they attended one while working full time, and paying full tuition without aid. what kept them going was a reasonable roi . the i was their investment of hard earned dollars that they used to pay for their tuition and gave them the incentive to stay in. they had skin in the game so they endured. getting something for free doesn’t instill any obligation, and that’s a common lived experience.
But using student debt, as an incentive to study hard, as justification that debt is good, is bit of a stretch.
There are plenty of students that do well without pressure.
Programs that are trying to pull in people on the fence will inevitably have some that don't make it, the goal is for a net positive. If local employers have 1 extra qualified employee at the cost of 2 or 3 that don't make it, it still balances out. The state is out the money for a few tuitions for students that didn't make it, but the lifetime earnings of the one that made it is greater.
